The authors of the report wrote that the catalyst behind the dire warnings is escalating concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2).
The authors said that to salvage what remains, a much faster phase-out of oil, coal, and other fossil fuels is necessary. Failure could cause water and food shortages, plus extreme heat, for a third to half of the world’s population.
The message is similar to that of the United Nations, U.S. President Joe Biden, the World Economic Forum, and countless government leaders: CO2 concentrations are too high, and the continued burning of fossil fuels, which release CO2, will cause people to die.
However, not all scientists share this view.
“The whole thing is a total scam,” Mr. Moore said. “There is actually no scientific evidence that CO2 is responsible for climate change over the eons.”
Mr. Moore said that over the past few decades, the climate message has repeatedly changed; first, it was global cooling, then global warming, then climate change, and now, it’s disastrous weather.
“They’re saying all the tornadoes, all the hurricanes, all the floods, and all the heat waves are all caused by CO2. That is a lie. ... We’re part of the cycle,” he said.
“We don’t need CO2. For us, it’s a waste product—we need oxygen. But plants are the ones who made the oxygen for us, and we’re making the CO2 back for them.”
He said the burning of fossil fuels—which emits CO2—is a good thing for plant life.
“We are replenishing the atmosphere with CO2 up to a level that is much more conducive to life and growth of plants, in particular.”
Weather-related deaths and climate disasters have in fact declined “precipitously” over the years, according to John Christy, a climatologist and professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the director of the Earth System Science Center.
“CO2 is portrayed now as the cause of damaging extreme weather. Our research indicates these extremes are not becoming more intense or frequent,” Mr. Christy told The Epoch Times. “Thus, CO2 cannot be the cause of something not occurring.”
The plan is “collective suicide,” according to Malgosia Askanas, a senior research and development associate at Aurora Biophysics Research Institute.
Ms. Askanas said the concern over CO2 isn’t based on science.
Carbon Dioxide and Life
Mr. Christy said the earth’s climate has “tremendous natural variability” and that it’s currently in a gradual warming phase.“CO2 has been unfairly demonized because it is actually plant food in its atmospheric form, and it is the consequence of generating carbon-based energy, which unquestionably improves lives around the world,” he said.
He calls CO2 the “currency of life.”
“In past epochs, there were many times more CO2 levels in the atmosphere than today.”
Mr. Moore pointed to a graph that charts CO2 and temperature over the past 500 million years.
“It’s very clear that CO2 and temperature have been out of sync more often than they’ve been in sync,” he said. “That more or less negates the whole idea that there’s a direct cause-effect going on there.”
Mr. Moore said that current CO2 concentrations are “historically low.”
“Going back 150 million years, CO2 was somewhere between 2,000 and 2,500 parts per million (ppm),” he said.
Generally, atmospheric CO2 is low (around 180 ppm) during glacial periods and higher during interglacials, according to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Before the Industrial Era, circa 1750, atmospheric CO2 was about 280 ppm for several thousand years, the IPCC states.
Mr. Moore said that that’s a good thing and that the push for net-zero CO2 is a disastrous policy. Anything under 150 ppm is “starvation level” for most plant species.
“Commercial greenhouse growers worldwide purposefully increase the CO2 level in their greenhouses to between 800 and 1,200 ppm. Really, it’s about 2,000 where you’re at the optimum level for trees and plants, in general.”
Patrick Hunt, president of Climate Realists of British Columbia, said people don’t generally understand CO2.
“They’ve been told that a warmer Earth is bad, although evidence shows that’s wrong,” he told The Epoch Times. “In the Dark Ages, it was colder. It was colder and not nearly as comfortable living during the Little Ice Age.
“But during the medieval warming period, they had enough money left over to build cathedrals.”
Mr. Hunt said that biomass, or plant growth, on earth has increased by 20 percent over the past 40 years, “and 70 percent of that 20 percent growth is attributed to CO2.”
“It is ironic that the very same carbon emissions responsible for harmful changes to climate are also fertilizing plant growth, which in turn is somewhat moderating global warming,” the report co-author, Jarle Bjerke of the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, said.
Temperature and CO2 as a Net Good
Since 1950, CO2 emissions from humans have risen “exponentially,” Mr. Moore said, but the temperature hasn’t responded the same way.“There’s no way that that can be a cause-effect relationship. The cause is supposed to be CO2. But if CO2 was responsible for warming, it would have warmed more than it has,” he said.
“The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving ... taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production,” President Trump said at the time.
Mr. Moore said the 1.5 degree Celsius limit imposed by the Paris Agreement is “garbage.”
“This 1.5 degrees that’s going to destroy the whole Earth? The Earth has been way more than 1.5 degrees warmer throughout most of its history,” he said.
“We happen to be in a warming blip now called the Modern Warm Period. But the Modern Warm Period is coming out of the Little Ice Age, which peaked around 1600—long before we started using fossil fuels.”
Mr. Christy said the extra CO2 might put off the next ice age, but not by much.
“I suspect CO2 has a net benefit when you weigh the advantages of energy and carbon-based products compared with living without this energy or these products,” he said. “I lived in Africa and can assure you that, without energy, life is brutal and short.
“The concentration of CO2 is increasing because humans use carbon in many ways to enhance living standards. The response of the climate system is gradual and, in my opinion, entirely manageable, especially considering the massive benefits to human life it brings.”
Politics Versus Science
Mr. Christy said climate science has become a “failed science” as the questioning of its claims is “discouraged or even prevented.”“This is especially true among certain political groups and the majority of the media outlets that I see.”
Ms. Askanas pushed back on the widely propagated concept that there’s scientific consensus about “the harmfulness of CO2, about global warming trend, about the increase in natural disasters, about the melting of arctic ice.”
“These are all politically motivated dogmas that are buttressed by careless or outright fraudulent data, statistics, and arguments,” she said, calling the U.N. net-zero plan “fascistic through-and-through.”
She said she sees the climate agenda as a way for governments to gain total political control.
Ms. Askanas outlined several government-imposed climate remedies, including carbon footprint regulations, carbon credits, skyrocketing transportation costs, and huge government subsidies for so-called green initiatives.
Mr. Moore expressed particular concern over the effect of spending on the phasing out of fossil fuels in energy systems.
“With wind, you can’t predict it very far into the future, and neither can you with solar because the clouds are going to come. And so, you have about one-third of the time when those two technologies are producing,” he said.
“So, what do you do the other two-thirds of the time if you shut off fossil fuels? Well, the first answer would be nuclear energy, because that can do it. But no, we don’t want that in the West.”
Wind and solar, he said, “are not feasible.”
“It’s just a total pipe dream, a fantasyland. It can’t be done.”
Ms. Askanas agreed.
“Converting the Earth into a desert of solar panels and wind generators will still not provide enough energy. Although it might make the planet unlivable enough so no energy would be required.”
